However, there are aspects of it that deserve scrutiny and criticism. There are a number of reasons for making this statement...

The best reason is "that's science". Science is all about scrutiny and criticism. It is how we make sure we got it right. Since Darwin published his findings, the theory of evolution has received possibly more scrutiny and criticism than any other theory in science. This does not make it the weakest. Rather the opposite. Because of this scrutiny and criticism, it may be the strongest theory in all science.

Is it possible that the research, studies, and conclusions within evolutionary science are conducted with an inherent dictate to prove that evolution is valid and provable….at all costs. Certainly, science is just as susceptible to corruption as, say, Wallstreet. Consider the following:

How about considering this instead: corruption and falsification in science will be rooted out. That is one of the reasons why we use the scientific method. Consider also corruption in theology. Who has more to gain from corruption? The scientist or the huckster holy man? And whom is the one making the testable claims? A scientist claims he's developed cold fusion. Great. Let me try it out. But a priest claims god told him to screw your hot 16 year old daughter? How dare you question god. You lack faith.

Funny how few biologists there are and how many have backgrounds in mathemetics, philosophy of science, astronomy, signal and image processing, physics, plasma physics, etc. I think it is fair to say they either do not know what they are talking about OR like all good scientists, they are saying we should be skeptical of all of our knowledge. As in, "of course we could be wrong about it, but it is the best explanation we have." I am not the first to say this.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Expertise_relevanceCheck out the part where people say the Discovery Institute was misleading when they asked them to sign. Talk about ethics and fraud. What a pack of liars. I thought xians were supposed to be better, more moral than us?

You should be ashamed, biblestudent. Very ashamed. Hang your head and beg baby jesus to forgive you for such a lame argument.

You have my permission to correct the record on this point. If one of the key points of his argument is in fact a misrepresentation of your words, then it is fair - to you and to UniversityPastor - that you get a shot to clarify your position. You may have one post. UniversityPastor will have to take it from that point though as I do not think it would be good to have a back and forth with you involved.

It is an abysmal brazenness that BS displays and it is one of the reasons i can not, in any form, respect most figures from the YEC and ID movement, now also including him. BibleStudent, you are one objectionable contemporary.

I still think you changed direction late in the game, but I am not going to accuse you outright of dishonesty.

I am not satisfied with this. There's nothing that i would have had to define about my position earlier. I think it is very clear that any position a person takes or any knowledge someone holds can be wrong. I didn't change anything about my position. You just didn't understand it.

Calling him on a lie is fair if one can directly reference the lie and show that it is a lie (rather than simply being mistaken). Especially if it's a lie about an individual on the forum.

Including examining the logical possibilities of motivations behind the action, ie intentional lie or subconscious action. We are well beyond establishing that it is in fact a falsehood, next comes the interpretation of the reasoning.

Quote

Going on about how he's a liar (in general) without having an example handy is different, Jetson.

Which no one is doing or has done.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

I don't call BS a liar, because i think he simply doesn't get what i am saying and that he is probably unfamiliar with the concept that any knowledge - regardless how reliable the foundation is seen to be - may be erroneous. I don't think that he thinks about his knowledge in the same way as i do about mine.

I don't call BS a liar, because i think he simply doesn't get what i am saying and that he is probably unfamiliar with the concept that any knowledge - regardless how reliable the foundation is seen to be - may be erroneous. I don't think that he thinks about his knowledge in the same way as i do about mine.

That would be a fair comment on the original thread, Emergence, but not here and now. He has had time to read and process your responses to him in the interim, and has pretended that you never made them.

Well, i simply entertain the possibility that - due to the divergence of our philosophical understanding of 'knowledge' - everything i said in the original thread after "I may be wrong" flew right over his head. Regardless of that, i find it really aggravating that he doesn't even make an effort of understanding now that it has been pointed out clearly to him.

On the other hand: I said what i had to say and it is on record in the debate thread and therefore i am done with this episode. Additionally UP has done a really nice job in further illustrating my point. All that this incident now does is showing how big the discrepancies between BS train of thought and valid reasoning really are. At least to me it does.

As 'burned child' i am naturally not in favor of letting BS play his games and dictate the rules of conversation. To me this has turned out to be very counterproductive. Not that i am sure that strict rules will improve the overall quality of conversation, but at least it is more educational that way.

BS "does not know how to begin to respond" to my postsSo I'm tempted to explain, that a good place to start would be with the first claim of the first post, and then the second, and so on.

But I've already danced the dance quite a bit with BS about debate format, and the posts are long, so I could understand the sentiment that says "Just answer his questions"

Since you're the audience, I thought it would be fitting to let you decide. I need the old roman Pollice verso. Thumbs up or thumbs down?

Do I play his game? or do I force him to refute my existing argumentation or else admit defeat?

IMO, I think BS should try to answer all 3 posts as best he can manage, in the formal debate structure/ format as agreed to, since debate was begun and has continued in that manner. I'm not sure why he thinks he "can't begin to respond" but that impression could be due to his unfamiliarity with the manner of organizing his responses to fit format or something- not that he doesn't already have his responses to post. Somehow, I think he does. I would just post a short one-line reply to him as the above post suggests at this point: i.e., 'Start with the 1st claim of the 1st post,... and so on'.

It seems the debate style is the difficulty , unless that implied 'difficulty' and 'unfamiliarity' is indeed a BibleStudent 'game' to change the style of conversation; but I do have to agree with BS on his earlier point that most previous discussions in this section [refer to archives] didn't follow formal debate style-they appeared more like extended thread posts. A debate with loose structure in this one with BS like I believe he apparently wants (?) would possibly have the potential to go on for 50+ pages, arguing whatever minutiae. Re: "admitting defeat"(with a forced ultimatum), I highly doubt BS would ever admit defeat; Yet, if he does, would anyone interpret that as his opponent really "winning" this debate? I'd like to see what BS' refutations are, so hopefully, this won't end with BS not responding, or calling the whole thing "unfair" or some such excuse.

Logged

Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risks of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one.-Sigmund Freud

The reason I left WWGHA forum a year or so ago (at which time I was the leading poster.) was the futility of trying to reason with people who have foregone conclusions about the invisible guy in the sky. Doesn't seem like much as changed, one side looks for the facts to draw reasonable conclusions on while the other side tries to support their foregone conclusion in any way they can.

Can't really blame them, since in their view, really questioning the invisible guy in the sky about his inerrant book causes you to lose your place in line for paradise.

No. That was one of the reasons I kept harping on an agreement of protocol for the debate/discussion. Unfortunately, there was never an explicit agreement, so my hands are somewhat tied. However, there has been something of a format laid out and sort of followed. Changing the direction entirely is bad form. I would say unacceptable.

No. That was one of the reasons I kept harping on an agreement of protocol for the debate/discussion. Unfortunately, there was never an explicit agreement, so my hands are somewhat tied. However, there has been something of a format laid out and sort of followed. Changing the direction entirely is bad form. I would say unacceptable.

Okay, Do you want to PM hm with the news?

yeah BS didn't really explicitly agree to anything ever. I kept putting things before him, and he kept resisting explicitness. I think at some point we have to accept non-disagreement on BS's part as agreement.

I have changed my mind about you UP, interesting... I nothing funny to say. shit, I wasn't funny anyway.

Logged

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

yeah BS didn't really explicitly agree to anything ever. I kept putting things before him, and he kept resisting explicitness. I think at some point we have to accept non-disagreement on BS's part as agreement.

I took his participation as tacit agreement, though his not following any of the formatting seemed to be an explicit denial.